Davis+v.+Monroe+County+Board+of+Education

__Background __
====Aurelia Davis filed suit against the Monroe County Board of Education on behalf of her fifth grade daughter, LaShonda, who had been sexually harassed by a classmate on several occasions. LaShonda had complained to at least two teachers and the principal, but no action was taken by the school. Ms. Davis followed up on the complaints, but it still took three months for LaShonda to even be allowed to changed seats in the classroom. The abuse stopped when the classmate was charged with sexual battery; he pled guilty. The plaintiff’s claim is that LaShonda was prevented from receiving educational opportunities promised her under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 which state, "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance..." The premise is that the school accepts federal funds with the agreement that federal statutes will be honored; in this situation, the recipient (the school) was allegedly indifferent to circumstances which created a hostile environment, albeit due to a third party. The defendant argues that they did not disregard the statute since no employee was involved in the harassment. ====

__Decision and Rationale __
====On appeal from successive adverse rulings in both district and appellate court, the Supreme Court granted Davis certiorari, which allowed the court to review the proceedings from both lower courts for irregularities. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor delivered the court’s decision in favor of the plaintiff on several points. First off, there is an implied private right to education in Title IX, and a corresponding liability for private damages for not responding to issues that interfere with an individual’s education on school property. Secondly, Congress declared in the Constitution’s Spending Clause (Article 1, section 8, clause 1) that all beneficiaries of federal funding must be informed of the conditions of receipt and would know that they must intercede. Finally, the court noted the attitude of the Board was absolutely unsympathetic to the grievances of its students and guardians seeing as it out and out ignored them regardless of the seriousness. ====

__Impact on Education __
====Educators must maintain an environment free from hostility and aggression, one appropriate for learning. Title IX gives students the right to protection from discriminatory behavior of schoolmates. This case gave unmistakable direction to schools to mediate student-on-student bullying and harassment or risk losing federal assistance. See More... ====

__Quiz Question __
====Local school boards can be held liable for the actions of students. ( True /False) ====

Reviewed independently by Eileen Boyd
** Tiffany Thompson ** Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit Argued: January 12, 1999 Decided: May 24, 1999

** Background: **

A fifth grader, LaShonda Davis, was repeatedly abused by a male classmate. After the school’s administration was informed no action had been taken to investigate the matter. LaShonda’s mother, Amelia Davis, wanted to collect damages for the sexual harassment her daughter had to endure. She felt the school created an “intimidating, hostile, offensive, and abusive school environment that violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.” Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 “prohibits a student from being ‘excluded from participation in, being denied the benefits of, or being subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.’”

** Decision and Rationale: **

The United States Court of Appeals held that under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 damages can be obtained from the school board in cases involving “student-on-student” sexual harassment where the harassment “is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive” that it hinders the victim from opportunities given through the education system. The school board took no action to investigate the victim’s accusations. According to the court, the victim’s assailant was conducting in behavior that was “severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive” and impinged on LaShonda receiving a formal education and therefore, the school system should have investigated the matter.

** Impact on Teaching: **

When a school system is informed about sexual harassment misconduct, they should investigate thoroughly to make sure the perpetrator’s actions are under control and being taken care of accordingly. Sexual harassment is a serious matter and can affect a student’s academic achievement as well as cause them to create a negative self-image or even become depressed. It is solely the school’s responsibility to take care of matters like those discussed in //Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education//. Teachers and administration should take steps to prevent sexual harassment from occurring and keep a watchful eye in order to protect the safety of their students.

** Applicable Quiz Question: **

True/False Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 allows a student to be discriminated against during an education program or activity.

Sandra Hansen Davis v. Monroe County United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit Argued January 12, 1999 Decided: May 24, 1999 Background: On behalf of her daughter, Lashonda Davis, Aurelia Davis filed a suit against Monroe County Board of Education. Lashonda, a fifth grader, has been repeatedly sexually harassed by a classmate on several occasions. The girl made multiple complaints to her teachers and the principle which to no avail amounted to no action or intervention by the school. It was not until the abuser was charged with and plead guilty to sexual battery. As a result in the schools failure to protect her daughter, MS. Davis was seeking restitution for the damages her daughter endured. Ms. Davis claimed in her suit that her daughter was prevented from receiving the education granted by the provisions under Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972. Decision and Rationale: As a result of the findings and the evidence presented, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor delivered the court’s decision in favor of the plaintiff on the basis of Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972. Under this amendment, the court stated that students can be provided with restitution when the harassment is so severe that it inhibits education and learning. Impact on Education: The impact on education is that it puts in the forefront the importance on protecting the students. Educators are responsible for creating a safe and conducive learning environment for the students. Fortunately for many students under the provisions of Title IX the school is held responsible beyond the general scope of teaching. Quiz Question: Under Title IX the parents are held liable for the actions of the students and are required to make restitution in the event a student is prohibited from receiving an education. (T/F)